4 ms·

Considering that it runs very smooth for me at 1080p using a first generation, low-end quad core and ultra cheap onboard video, I can only assume that you eithe

• beering 14y ago
  It's not enough to say that it runs smoothly for most of the animation. It should run smoothly for virtually every second of the animation. I have a computer that beats yours hardware-wise running Chrome, and there were many places in the animation where fps dropped below an acceptable threshold. Some people are also more trained to notice fps drops too.
• pretoriusB 14y ago
  Running "very smooth for you" doesn't mean much. For one, it doesn't do much anyway -- some circles, some boxes, some bordes, shape tweening, and a soundtrack. You could do this stuff in 1080p in 10 year old hardware if you did it native. Heck, you could probably even do it in an Amiga 3000 circa 1992. I sure remember an O2 (I think it was called) by SGI doing far more impressive real time stuff in 1996. And that machine had about 1/5 the capabilities of my iPhone. The thing is, it uses quite a lot CPU power for what it does (and no, it's not "technical issues" with individual systems: it tends to do so in general in every system), and the animation isn't always smooth and far from 60fps. And the suggestion that he's "using a browser that doesn't properly support some of the required CSS3 features" only reinforces his point, that when it comes to web technology it's a large step backwards from what we can achieve in native systems.